Pistorius was a cr@p witness according to Judge Thokozile Masipa currently summing up.

Crap but not guilty of murder

I thought this was going to be the difinitive answer to "was Deckard a replicant"?

Not gulity of premeditated murder, but still could be found guilty of common murder or culpable homicide according to the BBC site

although the main text seems to be 20 mins behind the feed on the side, tumhat has him cleared of murder. Ho Hum

It's all about the lolly guys & dolls.

I clicked on the BBC feed briefly and it happened to have this quote from the judge:


That ends any interest I had in the case (which wasn't that much) right there. I'm thinking if I think a human is the other side of a door, and I pump a hail of bullets at point blank range through the door - because I apparently fear for my own life - then yes, i think I could forsee that one likely outcome is they will die. Like, er, if my bullets hit them?

I also know it's not unique to South Africa, but find it unsavoury and cruel, whatever you may think of the defendant, to have this X-factor style pregnant pause verdict. He should have been told what he was found innocent or guilty of, and then given the reasoning. There's no need to make him sit there and sweat trying to second-guess what's coming for a couple of hours.

EDIT: some time later, back at the court:



So, on the one hand:
"[iHe cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door[/i"
... but on the other hand a reasonable person [iwould...
"have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die[/i".

So he cannot have foreseen killing them, but should have foreseen they might die. Okaaaaay.

And then why not adjourn in the early afternoon, so the defendant has another night to stew. Weird.

What I am struggling with is why would the first thing an intruder would do is go for a dump? This is bonkers!!

An intruder breaking into a house at night might go into a bathroom in the search for another room.

For me what makes him guilty is the fact he was supposedly awoken from sleep and assumes intruders yet doesn't check on the whereabouts of the woman he supposedly loves.

Plus the fact his testimony was the most pathetic and wimpy that's ever been given. He deserves serious jail time just for the testimony alone.

Agree with all that. I'm nowhere even close to knowing much about how the justice system works in any country including in Britain, my only experiences of it being very fleeting.

But a few things seemed strange to me. First of all the lack of a jury. I know we have magistrates in this country deciding often very important (for the people involved) cases but for a murder/manslaughter case we'd rightly have a jury. I think it's infinitely preferable to 1 person making a decision.

Then as you say the strange decision the judge has come to. From what I heard she basically said he knew there was someone there, that he was aiming to shoot them (ie not a warning) and it wasn't reasonable to think he himself was in danger and that he had numerous other options available to him ie calling for help. How she can state that and dismiss murder I don't know, but as I say I'm nowhere close to knowledgable on legal aspects.

I agree entirely with you on he shouldn't be kept waiting. It's unfair and unnecessary.
I don't understand why it took all day for such short statements to be read out by the judge or why they had to finish the day so early. Also the judge, at times, didn't appear very au fait with what she was reading.

I have many reservations about our criminal justice system, but it seems light years ahead of that in SA.

As FA says, her logic is flawed ....
It should be pointed out to her at her trial for incompetence.
Just joking me lady ... loved you and Parker in that puppet thingy on TV.

Must admit I always thought that the fact that his girlfriend had locked herself in the toilet was hugely significant. Who does that in the middle of the night? But then I was discussing it with my sister and she said "I do".

I don't think the Judge has expressed her reasoning particularly well. But it was down to the prosecution to prove that his version of events was false. They clearly demonstrated that it was extremely unlikely but they never produced the smoking gun that proved absolutely that it couldn't have happened the way he said.

In the end it comes down to what constitutes reasonable doubt. Its a subjective test, everyone will have a slightly different threshold on "reasonableness". I thought any doubt would unreasonable or fanciful, a view clearlynot shared by the judge.

From the Beeb:



I only know of SA law what I've read during this trial, but this is the same point I made above, and if an eminent SA law professor sees this obvious point, how come a judge doesn't?

It is beyond ridiculous to say a person doing this doesn't foresee the bullets might kill the person behind the door. What else could they possibly foresee? They cannot credibly argue they didn't foresee that a person shot at short range might be killed.

Yep.

And, frankly, I just don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend wasn't laying in bed next to him when he woke up. How that can be taken seriously or believed in any way is a joke in my opinion.

But if that person was an intruder he would have been allowed to kill him. The prosecution haven't been able to prove that Pistorious knew it was his girlfriend behind the door.

Nonsense.

Charleze Theron's mum did it and wasn't charged, on that basis

Didn't she kill her husband who was threatening both her and her child? It also wasn't through a closed door.

Do you mean the Charlize Theron whose mother faced with her husband armed with a shotgun and saying he was going to kill them both, shot him in self-defence, or some other Charlize Theron, as I'm puzzled as to why you think that is the same.

Shooting first someone who is in your face, armed with a shotgun and saying they are going to kill you and your child is, you think, the same thing?

She was not prosecuted NOT because she was allowed to "shoot an intruder" but because she was allowed to shoot him in self-defence to save her own life and that of her daughter. Him being an "intruder" was not a relevant issue. Him being about to shoot her dead was kind of the big point.

Yes, the same Charleze Theron whose mother faced with her husband armed with a shotgun and saying he was going to kill them both, who shot said husband as an act of self defence, as the Oscar Pistorius afraid an armed intruder was in his house threatening his life and that of his girlfriend.

Must be a different one...

And you haven't noticed the teensy weensy differences?

If teensy weensy differences mean scenarios can't be compared, we aren't going to compare many things in life now, are we.

Legal people in SA not happy and feel that the judge totally missed the point about what constitutes murder.
The state should appeal.

But there was no direct threat to his life and he wasn't confronted by anyone. He thought an intruder "might" be behind a closed door. He had to get up, get his gun, walk into a different room and shoot without knowing who was there.

Very, very different.

Eh? We can compare anything we like, the point is you're comparing chalk and cheese and coming up with "almost identical". Please remind me not to let you make my sandwiches.